<title_here - deleted due to porn ads>

[A_Son_of_God]

<comment_here>

 

[Smew]

There are some who view translation as being a weakness; that a point can get lost in translation, and therefore we can never really know the true meaning of something. Is this fair to say?

Yes. One big problem with the gospels is that the oral traditions about Jesus were written in Hebrew and Greek, neither of these being the Eastern Aramaic which Norther Jews spoke. So we're dealing with not one but at least two language changes.
Example:- See how Christianity changed people's names. Here is and example:-
John . {1:42} And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
But in Christianity Simon BarJona became 'Peter'.

For instance, a common misunderstanding is that Elijah was taken up to heaven in a windstorm (2Kings 2:1-18). Why is this a problem? Because Jesus states that nobody has been to heaven, except for himself (John 3:10-15).2 Kings {2:1} And it came to pass, when the LORD would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal.

The above is your error rather than any translator's............ See how Elijah was REALLY taken up in to heaven:-

2 Kings {2:11} And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, [there appeared] a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. {2:12} And Elisha saw [it,] and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.

And so, I ask good readers: 'How did Elijah get taken in to Heaven? Answer ..a chariot of fire in a whirlwind.

Badly Translated Passages
There is another area that shows how a bad translation can hide a true meaning. I'll highlight one here.
Philippians 2:5-6 in the King James Version reads:

You can only show how different translators have shown the above.

Then it shows God giving Jesus a name above every other name. So if Jesus was God, or EQUAL to God, did God now make Jesus' name higher than that of God or not?

This is very interesting.
For example, in the very first verse of G-Mark we can see:-
Mark {1:1} The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Some translations warn us that the last four words (the Son of God; ) were not present in most of the most ancient copies of G-Mark that we have. And so (later on) a keen Christian decided to pop those in.

Jesus was a Northern Jewish man, and he referred to himself as 'This son of man', which is rather like an Englishman referring to himself as 'This man' (This man is going to ther pub...etc etc....

 

[A_Son_of_God]

<comment_here>

 

[Kev45]

Sunday at 11:03 AM

#70

Smew said:
We know that Cephas faced up to Paul.... I can imagine why.
Whatever do you call Cephas Peter? Jesus never did!

Matthew 16:18 <-- a verse where Jesus calls Peter, "Peter".

As mentioned, you don't know anything. Your complaints about poor little old troll you being picked on by all the horrible Christians is the picture you want to paint. All you do is lie and accuse, you little Satan.

Because you lied, I do not intend to answer anything else from you. You go on the list of others who can be ignored.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

<comment_here>

 

[Kev45]

You're simply too stupid to talk to. Best wishes, you poor, poor, stupid bastard.
Oh.
One more thing...
Have a safe year. Now back on ignore you go.

Just pointing out you keep abusing other chatters then putting them on fake iggy, before you try again to provoke another reaction... so that you can abuse them some more and then put them on iggy again...

You don't get to abuse me and bluff your way out of it a few hours later sweetheart.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

<comment_here>

 

[Kev45]

You can warn all you like, you are a nobody. What you typed earlier today, a mish mash of abuse and misquotes all rolled into one.

I mean, how long did it take you to even type all that?

You don't get to abuse me and bluff your way out of it.

"What does that mean? Because you joined THIS site first, it means you don't go following people around the internet harassing them? Let me show you otherwise, even on this one site..." (quote system failure but from same thread.

---

As you openly admit, you removed the worst excesses of your foul abuse, being the sly little sausage that you really are, but take a guess who typed these abusive comments?

First of all, I removed ALL comments to you. Do you remember? No, of course not. They weren't "the worst excesses", as you make out. This is what you're like though. You slander, exaggerate, and use half-truths. Just like the Devil does. But also, mine were responses to yours. Remember? No, of course not. You don't know what you type. Let me remind you of your first smart comments on here, and then the stupid ones that you typed straight after it.
Here's a good one...

I 100% agree. Which is why I avoid commenting on any debate or political threads. I posted on the more light-hearted threads, and they were instantly pushed down by four or five negative threads where only one person types on them.

Yeah? You avoid commenting on any debate or political threads. LOL. Like I said. Funny guy, but not very bright. Why not? Because you posted THIS on 28/11/2022, and then you posted THIS on 11/12/2022.

I 100% agree. That's exactly why I don't bother contributing myself. I browsed through the recent board topics yesterday, the new world cup thread is just about the only thread that doesn't involve conspiracy theories of some sort, and hard right rhetoric. I also deleted a post yesterday because ultimately it is pointless trying to engage with people who spam boards with YouTube videos and "sheep" insults and who are incapable of holding a conversation that doesn't revolve around them and their views.

AND...

Paul gets up for work at 6am and fills his kettle to prepare his morning cuppa. The water is clean because some woke tree-hugger fought for minimum water-quality standards. Paul prepares his bacon and eggs, and the bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat industry.

So, let's get this right.
1) You avoid commenting on any debate or political threads.
2) You don't bother contributing yourself, but
3) You comment on their "hard right rhetoric" - sounds pretty political to me
4) You call a person a "woke tree-hugger", so you're against people caring for the environment by mockery, and then call another a "girly-man" <--I'd say that's a bit political. Wouldn't you? No?

Also, from here, December 2022, anyone can look back at your chat history, and count how many people you've abused in conversations that you say you're not involved in.

---

"You're simply too stupid to talk to. Best wishes, you poor, poor, stupid bastard."

You are. You ARE stupid. If you weren't stupid, you'd not be following me around the web. That demonstrates your stupidity. Also, consider this comment of yours, from 2022,

Sherbet fountain, top tip don’t start chewing the liquorish until you are at least 2 1/3s down the tube. It took discipline, bu it could be done.

LOL WHAT??? At least 2 AND ONE THIRDS down the tube??? Go back to school! Start at pre-school. No, it can't be done, Kev!!! Peanut brain! Buy a maths book. Ask the cashier how much change he should give you.
Let's look at another Kev funny. It's true, you ARE a former comedian.

No question was asked, it isn't complex at all, in fact it is really rather simple. 550 members of the LGBT community were subjected to violence each month between May and August. That is a fact. I didn't introduce the LGBT topic and was merely responding in kind. That is also a fact.

Actually, the person you're responding to did in fact ask you questions, and then stated in his comment that those questions need addressing. Grammarly explains "syntax" as "...the arrangement of words and phrases in a specific order that affects the meaning of sentences." I suggest you go and learn a bit of it.
But again, thanks for the laughs.

---

"You're a funny guy. Not very bright, but yeah, quite funny."

This is true too. I mean, you can't even get into a debate section and actually lay a point out. That means after all this time, you STILL don't know how to debate. You'd think after all these years, you'd have done some form of training. But no. So, you demonstrate your lack of "bright" here in that you love to be on the debate section, but not to debate, just to vomit.
Also, as the other examples have shown, you are a funny guy. But your mathematic skills and comprehension do suffer. I've posted some examples above.

---

"You're a dead man walking in your current state. I feel sorry for you that your pride is so large that it will be the death of you, but thanks for your future contribution in making the earth a paradise by fertilising the gardens for us."

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not true. Thank you again in advance. Too offended to see the warnings. LOL

---

"You can only be superficial, as depth is just beyond you. You know nothing, and you make a lot of noise."

I don't even need to respond based on anything you've said to me. Those examples above show that you can't understand simple sentences, let alone paragraphs.

---

"I think he's very sick. Very ill. Mentally and emotionally. Sorry for deleting the comments, but there was just no point in giving him anything. I'll talk about him, not to him."

Yes, very true. I think you need help, but you're too proud to get it. Add to that, "addicted to stalking people around the net and slagging them off. In fact, he even calls himself "mentally diseased". Why, you even called a person a "girly-man" and then go off on your claims about how much of a big, brave man you are standing up for the rights of the disadvantaged and discriminated against.

---

Guess who typed those abusive comments, go on?

Hmm...that'd be me. Now, why don't you tell the whole story. If there was no limit to the size of this thread, I'd post hundreds of examples of YOU attacking others for jest. But you cry when you get your own back.

---

Particularly the last one, which reveals who the actual stalker really is here, right?

I don't follow you around, chasing your comments down. You respond to mine, and I respond back. Why can't you see that? Never mind. I know the answer.

---

What kind of devout Christian uses "vile" and abusive language like that anyway?

Like what exactly? Calling you a stalker (which you are), who's demonstrated they can't debate in a debate room? Consistently trying to attack me? Having to devote their life to internet stalking of people who ignore them? That's you. Not me. But, I do indeed respond. I know you don't like it, but see, if you attack someone, expect them to defend themselves. If you don't want it, then stop being the aggressor.

Oh. I forgot. Here.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

<comment_here>

 

[Kev45]

Another misquote, I said no such thing.

A slippery, sly one who spent HOURS writing that misquoted, out of context, crap essay earlier.

But I am the stalker, right?

 

[Smew]

Sunday at 11:03 AM

#70

Smew said:
We know that Cephas faced up to Paul.... I can imagine why.
Whatever do you call Cephas Peter? Jesus never did!

Matthew 16:18 <-- a verse where Jesus calls Peter, "Peter".

As mentioned, you don't know anything. Your complaints about poor little old troll you being picked on by all the horrible Christians is the picture you want to paint. All you do is lie and accuse, you little Satan.

Because you lied, I do not intend to answer anything else from you. You go on the list of others who can be ignored.

 

[Smew]

Oral traditions? They weren't oral traditions. They were written down by his followers. Either his direct apostles, as in the case of Matthew and John, or by the attendants who worked with the apostles, as in the case of Mark and Luke.

I can type more easily on a computer, but even so to answer your uninformed writings would take me for ever. And so I'll do my best with your misconceptions, a very few at a time.

Oral Traditions amongst the working people of Northern Jewish Provinces:- Almost all of the Northern Jewish 5 peasant classes (90% of the population) were illiterate, had worked since they were infants and therefore had become used to remembering as much as they could be the recounting of stories amongst themselves, and this was a remarkably good method. None of the 4 gospels were written for over 30 years (or much longer) and so the Jesus story was kept alive by oral tradition.

The author of G-Matthew was not the disciple, nor was he a witness, we know this because he copied so much of the story from G-Mark.
The author of G-John was a either a priest or inmate living on the penal settlement upon Pentos Island, just off Ephesia in the early 2nd century and we knowe this because he said so in his book 'Revelation'. It's best if you find that for yourself because knowledge worked for is much more memorable.
If the boatman John Bar Zebedee had lived to write G-John he would have been over 90 years of age and since Northern Jewish peasants couldn't expect much more than 40-50 years life....well you can see the point.

We don't know who the author of G-Mark was but we can guess that he was a friend of Cephas because he wrote down Cephas's story.

Luke was no witness to Jesus because he copied much of G-Mark and other documents.

Your ideas about the working people of the Galilee in the first century do seem to be more strange...it would be unkind to call it 'uneducated' but I'm lost for any other description.

 

[Marrone]

There are some who view translation as being a weakness; that a point can get lost in translation, and therefore we can never really know the true meaning of something. Is this fair to say?

Of course it can be. It is fair to say when there is one sentence, or one paragraph, or an ill-defined explanation of things. But this is often stated about God's Word - The Bible. So, does having a different translation actually weaken the meaning of what is written?

Yes.

Let's consider it under the term of a so-called "contradiction".

Contradiction
Although the answer is yes, there are other points to consider here. Other factors. See, most people don't realise that The Bible is NOT a book, as such. It is a library of books. It is a series of 66 books and letters inspired by God, and written by his secretaries. Because it is a collection of books, it is often easy to determine a meaning, even if there appears to be some contradiction, by considering such things as context.

For instance, a common misunderstanding is that Elijah was taken up to heaven in a windstorm (2Kings 2:1-18). Why is this a problem? Because Jesus states that nobody has been to heaven, except for himself (John 3:10-15).

So which is it???

The issue is in the simplicity of calling things a contradiction. Also, specifying what "heaven" is. If you look carefully at 2Kings, you'll see that it nowhere says he was taken away from the earth. Yes, men asked to go looking for him, and they didn't find him. But Elisha never said he was taken to the heavens in the sense that he was no longer on earth. In fact, if you want to study it deeply, you'll find that Elijah is found writing a letter later on, from another location. So, Jesus was right when he said that nobody had been to heaven in the sense of being a spirit creature and being a true human...except himself.

Badly Translated Passages
There is another area that shows how a bad translation can hide a true meaning. I'll highlight one here.
Philippians 2:5-6 in the King James Version reads:

So, if we read that scripture in our modern English, we'd see a problem. Here it states that Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal to God. But the problem happens before then, as it says, "Let this mind be in you..." first. So, are we to conclude that we should be fine with considering we can be equal to God?

This is the results of a bad translation. But the thing it, we can always find what was meant by considering the context first. Look at this:
All we need to do is read the next verses - 7-12.

Verse seven says, "But", firstly. It shows that instead, Jesus took a slaves form. One of no account or value.

Then it shows that he became obedient. Obedient to who? Surely, he wasn't having issues with being obedient to himself, was he? No, but his Father.

Then it shows God giving Jesus a name above every other name. So if Jesus was God, or EQUAL to God, did God now make Jesus' name higher than that of God or not? Regardless of how one wants to look at this situation, you can see there is no equality of Jesus with God. Because IF...
IF...Jesus was already God, he would now be viewed as HIGHER than God. Yet, that is out of harmony with the Scriptures.

And as much as "every knee should bow" in heaven and on earth, it states that "...Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

The reason for the mistranslation is because the expression "thought it not" is not used in modern English any longer. So this can show how a bad translation can attempt to hide a clear meaning, but the point here is that the surrounding scriptures, as well as other ones in the Bible can be used to match what the Bible calls, "the pattern of healthful words". Just as a forensic scientist can analyse things, words can be analysed too, and their meanings determined from context and supporting verses.

Conclusion
I hope this article can help some of you to see that the weakness of translation does not remove the clarity of the Bible's message, if a little research is done. The rewards are great - one alone being knowing true from false as to what is written, but more so the hope of a great future for you and me. The Bible was written for translation, as the hope is offered to "every...language" (Revelation 5:9, 14:6)

no contradiction

 

[Marrone]

Yes. One big problem with the gospels is that the oral traditions about Jesus were written in Hebrew and Greek, neither of these being the Eastern Aramaic which Norther Jews spoke. So we're dealing with not one but at least two language changes.
Example:- See how Christianity changed people's names. Here is and example:-
John . {1:42} And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
But in Christianity Simon BarJona became 'Peter'.

The above is your error rather than any translator's............ See how Elijah was REALLY taken up in to heaven:-

2 Kings {2:11} And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, [there appeared] a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. {2:12} And Elisha saw [it,] and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.

And so, I ask good readers: 'How did Elijah get taken in to Heaven? Answer ..a chariot of fire in a whirlwind.

You can only show how different translators have shown the above.

This is very interesting.
For example, in the very first verse of G-Mark we can see:-
Mark {1:1} The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Some translations warn us that the last four words (the Son of God; ) were not present in most of the most ancient copies of G-Mark that we have. And so (later on) a keen Christian decided to pop those in.

Jesus was a Northern Jewish man, and he referred to himself as 'This son of man', which is rather like an Englishman referring to himself as 'This man' (This man is going to ther pub...etc etc....

what is norther jew

 

[A_Son_of_God]

<comment_here>

 

[Kev45]

Oral Traditions amongst the working people of Northern Jewish Provinces:- Almost all of the Northern Jewish 5 peasant classes (90% of the population) were illiterate, had worked since they were infants and therefore had become used to remembering as much as they could be the recounting of stories amongst themselves, and this was a remarkably good method. None of the 4 gospels were written for over 30 years (or much longer) and so the Jesus story was kept alive by oral tradition.

Indeed, and if I can add my 10p, it was also a period when oral tradition transitioned in a relatively brief period of time to a written culture (after 30 years or so) and after the death of Jesus. A huge cultural shift, and when the stories evolved as a direct consequence, incorporating the different experiences and perspectives of those sharing them and depending on the audience. An oral tradition that was extremely similar to other cultures such as Native American/ First Nations peoples etc. In fact, most cultures used story telling as a means of preserving knowledge, culture, and community before writing became a thing.



Edited: Before written culture became a thing.

 

[Kev45]

The main problem here is that Jehovah Witnesses consistently undermine their own argument, and there are numerous examples of this.

To keep it brief, the Watchtower's New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, their alleged translation of Holy Scripture, inserts "Jehovah" 237 times and despite Jehovah not appearing a single time in ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts, and including the earliest known discoveries.

This is an extremely important point because the insertion purposefully distorts (changes) the meaning of key Scriptures and Watchtower doctrine.

The Watchtower response, with no evidence at all, is that "Jehovah" was removed from the New Testament, blaming "apostate Christians" in the 2nd century and again with no evidence at all.

Really?

Their own argument undermines the integrity of the New Testament, which they claim that their faith is based upon.

And which must include their butchered translation of it, right?

 

[Smew]

Indeed, and if I can add my 10p, it was also a period when oral tradition transitioned in a relatively brief period of time to a written culture (after 30 years or so) and after the death of Jesus. A huge cultural shift, and when the stories evolved as a direct consequence, incorporating the different experiences and perspectives of those sharing them and depending on the audience. An oral tradition that was extremely similar to other cultures such as Native American/ First Nations peoples etc. In fact, most cultures used story telling as a means of preserving knowledge, culture, and community before writing became a thing.



Edited: Before written culture became a thing.

Exactly.....

 

[Smew]

Matthew:
Tax collector - certainly not illiterate, as no tax collector would be able to write a report if they didn't know how to write. He was a tax collector for the Romans too.

Matthew was a Levite and not a Northern Galilean, which is why he was also called the Levite and held such a good job. However, he certainly was not the author of G-Matthew......he copied author authors.

Luke:
Historian - certainly not illiterate, as he not only wrote Luke, but also Acts. His address is to a member of importance in the Roman government of some form - namely Theophilus.

Luke was not a Galilean Jew nor disciple and was a doctor, probably a Levite friend of Paul's .
But he was no witness

Paul:
Former Pharisee - Legal upholder of Jewish traditions, trained under one of the famed Jewish instructors, Gamaliel.
Your claims have no substantiation.

Paul was not a Northern Jew but a Levite holding a contract to the Temple priesthood, a contract he eventually busted.

The boatmen of Genesseret were illiterate,!
Your advertise your ignorance.

 

[Smew]

what is norther jew

The Jewish people living in the provinces above Samaria.
They spoke a different dialect (eastern Aramaic) to the more southerly Jews (western Aramaic or Hebrew).

The woman who challenged Cephas outside the Court where Jesus was being held, she made mention of that to show how she identified him as being 'one of them'.